Advertisement

ERGATIVITY pp 27-46 | Cite as

Neither Absolutive nor Ergative is Nominative or Accusative

  • DIANE MASSAM
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 65)

Keywords

Nominative Case Applicative Construction Internal Case Noun Incorporation Embed Subject 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akiyama, Masahiro. 2004. ‘Multiple nominative constructions in Japanese and economy.’ Linguistic Inquiry 35, 671-683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggs, Bruce. 1974. ‘Some problems of Polynesian grammar.’ Journal of the Polynesian Society 83, 401-426.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-Syntax: A Theory of Agreement. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Bittner, Maria, and Kenneth Hale. 1996a. ‘The structural determination of case and agreement.’ Linguistic Inquiry 27, 1-68.Google Scholar
  6. Bittner, Maria, and Kenneth Hale. 1996b. ‘Ergativity: Towards a theory of a heterogeneous class.’ Linguistic Inquiry 27, 531-604.Google Scholar
  7. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1992. ‘Nominally absolutive is not absolutely nominative.’ Proceedings of WCCFL XI, 44-60. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1993. ‘On ergativity and ergative parameters.’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 45-88.Google Scholar
  9. Bok-Bennema, Reineke. 1991. Case and Agreement in Inuit. Berlin/New York: Foris.Google Scholar
  10. Bok-Bennema Reineke, and A. Groos. 1984. ‘Ergativiteit.’ GLOT 7, 1-49.Google Scholar
  11. Campana, Mark. 1992. A Movement Theory of Ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 1995, The Minimalist Program, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. ‘Minimalist inquiries: The framework.’ In Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. 89-155. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case Marking and Grammatical Relations in Polynesian, Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  16. Chung, Sandra, and William Seiter. 1980. ‘The history of raising and relativization in Polynesian.’ Language 56, 622-638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, Ross: 1976. Aspects of Proto-Polynesian. Linguistic Society of New Zealand, Auckland.Google Scholar
  18. Cowper, Elizabeth. 2003. Finiteness. MS, University of Toronto. <http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/∼cowper/>
  19. Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dukes, Michael. 2000. Grammatical Properties of the Ergative Noun Phrase in Tongan. MS, Stanford University & University of Canterbury, NZ.Google Scholar
  21. Hale, Kenneth. 1968. ‘Review of ‘A Profile Generative Grammar of Maori by Patrick W. Hohepa.’ Journal of the Polynesian Society 77, 83-99.Google Scholar
  22. Hale, Kenneth. 1970. ‘The passive and ergative in language change: The Australian case.’ In S.A. Wurm and D. C. Laycock, eds., Pacific Linguistics Studies in Honour of Arthur Capell, 757-781. Canberra: Linguistics Circle of Canberra.Google Scholar
  23. Heycock, Caroline. 1993. ‘Syntactic predication in Japanese.’ Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2, 167-211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hohepa, Patrick. 1969. ‘The accusative-to-ergative drift in Polynesian languages.’ Journal of the Polynesian Society 78, 295-329.Google Scholar
  25. Hooper, Robin. 2000. ‘Revisiting the subject: properties of ergative and absolutive arguments in Tokelauan.’ In S. Fischer & W. Sperlich, eds., Leo Pasifika: Proceedings of 4-ICOL . Auckland: The Institute of Polynesian Langs and Literatures.Google Scholar
  26. Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical Form: from GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Johns, Alana. 1992. ‘Deriving ergativity.’ Linguistic Inquiry, 23:1, 57-88.Google Scholar
  28. Johns, Alana. 1996. ‘Ergativity: Working through some recent analyses.’ GLOT 2.6, 3-7.Google Scholar
  29. Johns, Alana. 2000. ‘Ergativity: A Perspective on recent work.’ In Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma eds., The First GLOT International State of the Article book: The Latest in Linguistics, pp. 47-73. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  30. Levin, Beth. 1983. On the Nature of Ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  31. Levin, Juliette and Diane Massam. 1985. ‘Surface ergativity: Case/Theta relations reexamined.’ NELS 15. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. GLSU.Google Scholar
  32. Manning, Christopher. 1994. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  33. Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Marantz, Alec. 1991. ‘Case and Licensing.’ Paper presented at ESCOL I, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  35. Marantz, Alec. 1993. ‘Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions.’ In Sam Mchombo, ed., Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar I. pp. 113-151. Stanford University, CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Massam, Diane. 1985. Case Theory and the Projection Principle. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  37. Massam, Diane. 1994. ‘Case without functional projections.’ Proceedings of the 1994 conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics. University of Toronto. pp. 369-379.Google Scholar
  38. Massam, Diane. 1998. ‘Instrumental aki and the nature of Niuean transitivity.’ Oceanic Linguistics: 37.1, 12-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Massam, Diane. 2000. ‘VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean word order’. In Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle, eds. The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, pp. 97-117. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  40. Massam, Diane. 2001a. ‘Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:1, 153-197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Massam, Diane. 2001b. ‘On the status of subject in Niuean.’ In W. Davies and S. Dubinsky, eds., Objects and Other Subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. Massam, Diane. 2002a. ‘Fully internal Case: Surface ergativity can be profound.’ In Andrea Rackowski and Norvin Richards eds. Proceedings of AFLA 8, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 185-196. Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  43. Massam, Diane. 2002b. ‘On the Left Periphery of VSO: Evidence from Niuean.’ Paper presented at the Workshop on the Syntax of VSO Languages. Universität Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
  44. Massam, Diane and Carolyn Smallwood. 1996. ‘Essential features of predication in English and Niuean.’ Proceedings of NELS 27, Graduate Linguistics Student Union, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  45. McEwen, J. M: 1970, Niue Dictionary, Department of Maori and Island Affairs, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  46. McGinnis, Martha Jo. 2001. ‘Variation in the phase structure of applicatives.’ In Johan Rooryck and Pierre Pica, eds., Linguistic Variations Yearbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  47. Murasugi, Kumiko. 1992. Crossing and Nested Paths: NP-Movement in Accusative and Ergative languages. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  48. Otsuko, Yuko. 2000. Ergativity in Tongan. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  49. Niue: a History of the Island, 1982, published jointly by the Institute of Pacific Studies of the University of the South Pacific and The Government of Niue, Alofi, Niue.Google Scholar
  50. Paul, Ileana. 1999. Malagasy Clause Structure. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
  51. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001.’T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences.’ In Michael Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: a Life in Language, p. 355-426. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  53. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2001. ‘What applicative heads apply to.’ In M. Fox, A. Williams and E. Kaiser eds., Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 7.1.Google Scholar
  54. Rackowski, Andrea. (to appear). ‘The case of voice in Tagalog.’ To appear in the Proceedings of AFLA 9. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  55. Rothstein, Susan. 1983. The Syntactic Forms of Predication. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  56. Schutze, Carson. 1997. INFL in Child and Adult Language: Agreement, Case and Licensing. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  57. Seiter, William: 1980, Studies in Niuean Syntax, Garland Press, New York.Google Scholar
  58. Sperlich, Wolfgang. 1994. ‘A theory of verb classes and case morphology in Niuean.’ Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Austronesian Languages, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
  59. Sperlich, Wolfgang. 1997. Tohi Vagahau Niue: Niue Language Dictionary. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press and the Government of Niue.Google Scholar
  60. Takahashi, Chioko. 1994. ‘Case, agreement, and multiple specifiers’. In Japanese/Korean linguistics 4, ed. By Noriko Akatsuka, 395-411. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  61. Ura, Hiroyuki. 1998. Ergativity and Checking Theory. MS, Osaka University.Google Scholar
  62. Woolford, Ellen. 1997. ‘Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective and accusative.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 181-227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Woolford, Ellen. 2004. Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. MS, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • DIANE MASSAM
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations